Bolos v. Bolos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cynthia S. Bolos filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Danilo T. Bolos under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging psychological incapacity on the part of both parties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio. Procedural History: Respondent Danilo Bolos received the RTC's decision on August 25, 2006, and timely filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006. However, the RTC denied due course to the appeal in an order dated September 19, 2006, citing Danilo's failure to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial as required by Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. A subsequent motion to reconsider this denial was also denied. Consequently, the RTC issued an order on January 16, 2007, declaring its decision final and executory. Danilo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's orders. The CA granted Danilo's petition, reversing the RTC's orders and stating that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration did not apply as the marriage predated the Family Code. The CA later denied Cynthia's motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration and her partial motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Cynthia S. Bolos seeks a review of the CA's decision and resolution through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She argues that the CA erred in applying the ruling in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli and in concluding that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, does not apply to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. Cynthia contends that the phrase "under the Family Code" in the rule refers to the petitions, not the marriages, and therefore, a motion for reconsideration was a precondition for Danilo's appeal. She also argues that the CA erred in denying her motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the RTC orders by ruling that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. Whether the pronouncement in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli is applicable to the instant case. Whether the phrase "under the Family Code" in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to "petitions" rather than "marriages." Whether a motion for reconsideration is a precondition for an appeal in cases involving marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in issuing the questioned resolution dated February 11, 2009. Whether the tenets of justice and fair play warrant a liberal view of the rules in favor of the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals setting aside the RTC orders and denying Cynthia's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: The Court held that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, explicitly states in Section 1 that it "shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines." This categorical language indicates that the Rule's coverage extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988. The Rule sets a clear demarcation line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code. Therefore, the RTC erred in applying A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to a marriage solemnized in 1980, prior to the Family Code's effectivity. On the applicability of Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli: The Court found the CA's reliance on Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli to be correct. In Enrico, this Court clarified that the coverage of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code. While Cynthia argued that the facts in Enrico were dissimilar, the principle established regarding the temporal scope of the Rule remains applicable. The CA correctly applied this principle to the present case, where the marriage predated the Family Code. On the interpretation of "under the Family Code": The Court rejected Cynthia's assertion that the phrase "under the Family Code" in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word "petitions" rather than "marriages." Applying the plain-meaning rule (verba legis), when a law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation, only application. The statute's literal meaning must be given effect, as "speech is the index of intention" (index animi sermo) and "from the words of a statute there should be no departure" (verba legis non est recedendum). The phrase clearly modifies "marriages," limiting the Rule's application to those solemnized under the Family Code. On the requirement of a motion for reconsideration: Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to marriages solemnized before the Family Code, the procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before an appeal, as stipulated in Section 20 of the Rule, was not mandatory in this case. Danilo's failure to file such a motion did not, therefore, constitute a ground for denying due course to his appeal. The RTC's denial of due course to Danilo's appeal was thus erroneous. On the denial of the motion for extension of time: The Court affirmed the CA's denial of Cynthia's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. The reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, as consistently held by the Court, citing Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japzon. Therefore, the CA decision had already attained finality when Cynthia filed her motion for reconsideration, placing it beyond the review jurisdiction of the CA and subsequently this Court. On the relaxation of rules: The Court reiterated that rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and cannot be set aside merely by claiming substantial merit. Rules prescribing time limits are mandatory and indispensable for the orderly administration of justice. Thus, the petitioner's plea for a liberal application of the rules based on justice and fair play was denied.
Main Doctrine
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) applies only to marriages solemnized during the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988), and not to marriages solemnized prior to its effectivity.